Police Groups Furiously Protest Eric Holder's Marijuana Policy Announcement

[RainDog]

Source: Huffington Post

A broad coalition of law enforcement officers who have spent the past three decades waging an increasingly militarized drug war that has failed to reduce drug use doesn't want to give up the fight.

Organizations that include sheriffs, narcotics officers and big-city police chiefs slammed Attorney General Eric Holder in a joint letter Friday, expressing "extreme disappointment" at his announcement that the Department of Justice would allow Colorado and Washington to implement state laws that legalized recreational marijuana for adults.

If there had been doubt about how meaningful Holder's move was, the fury reflected in the police response eliminates it. The role of law enforcement is traditionally understood to be limited to enforcing laws, but police organizations have become increasingly powerful political actors, and lashed out at Holder for not consulting sufficiently before adopting the new policy.

"It is unacceptable that the Department of Justice did not consult our organizations -- whose members will be directly impacted -- for meaningful input ahead of this important decision," the letter reads. "Our organizations were given notice just thirty minutes before the official announcement was made public and were not given the adequate forum ahead of time to express our concerns with the Department’s conclusion on this matter. Simply 'checking the box' by alerting law enforcement officials right before a decision is announced is not enough and certainly does not show an understanding of the value the Federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement partnerships bring to the Department of Justice and the public safety discussion."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/police-eric-holder-marijuana-_n_3846518.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=807241b=facebook

---

I'm sure the reality that the war on marijuana funds so many state law enforcement agencies has nothing to do with this. Next thing you know, Holder will go after asset seizure laws, that other pork, like, you know, the constitution mattered or something.

[defacto7]

1. As concerned citizens

they can say what they wish.

As Police chiefs, Sheriffs, and narc officers.. they have no say in law making. They are employees or elected officials of the city, state and local governments and subject to the laws the US government as well. Their's is the job of enforcement of those laws and enforcement only. I am getting tired of the enforcers of the law trying to be the law makers and judges as well. There is a reason, a huge reason for that separation. It's the difference between a democracy and a police state.

[olddad56]

4. They are only concerned about their job security..

the 'war on drugs' has resulted in a situation where the cops and the prison guards are dependent on the bogus drug laws to keep them employed.

[TheDebbieDee]

12. That's how I see things as well. Also, the dirty cops

see some of their incentives to look the other way drying up!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

77. not dirty, cuz they always have the best stuff.

At least my pals on the force do.

[SunSeeker]

20. If they're concerned about job security, they should stop voting Republican.

It is the evil GOP Governors and mayors who are slashing police and firefighters and teachers from state and city payrolls so they can give the rich more tax breaks.

[WestSeattle2]

51. Exactly. It's a huge jobs scam that's filled our prisons with people who simply don't belong there.

[gopiscrap]

53. yup fucking asshole pigs

feeding at the public trough in a phony war bloated for their benefit.

[LiberalFighter]

59. Those that rely on bogus crimes are corrupt and we don't need them in law enforcement.

[indie9197]

22. The federal law has not changed. It is selective enforcement now.

I can kind of understand why law enforcement is confused. As is everybody else. That is what pisses me off. Make it legal or don't bother.

[RainDog]

25. I think we're watching a process unfold

we've had more than a decade of quasi-legal medical mj.

we've had a proliferation of mmj businesses, and back and forth between state and federal agencies about these businesses. we now have a city suing the Justice Dept. over closure of a dispensary in CA.

now 2 states have decided to move beyond federal law - which has been stagnant on this issue for years, in spite of HUGE changes in public perception and medical and scientific information.

Dr. Gupta, on CNN, reviewed the evidence that the federal govt. has been unable to address, for whatever reasons, (pork, cough), and has stated federal agencies lied to maintain current policies... he specifically named the DEA, but every federal agency that deals with marijuana has agreed to "misstate" information to maintain prohibition.

Now, 10 months after two states legalized, the AG has told those two states they will not be targeted for implementing state laws that contradict federal law - as an experiment, basically. This doesn't ultimately solve the problem of reefer madness, but it allows these two states to be "laboratories" for changes in law.

Additionally, Leahy has called a Judiciary Committee hearing on Sept. 10th to ask Congress to review its role regarding law in relation to the changes voters made in those two states. He has suggested creating an exception for CO and WA state to allow people to legally possess an ounce of marijuana. This, too, doesn't ultimately solve the problem, but it creates momentum toward change.

In 2014, Alaska will probably join CO and WA state. Many other states have changes that will be on the ballot for 2014 as well.

We want to elect politicians who will not continue reefer madness to continue this momentum.

Politicians, hopefully, recognize that liberals have consistently supported legalization - over 70% in favor, for a few years. If Democrats want to get voters to the polls, they'll give them reasons.

[bobGandolf]

63. I swear, if they had their way, we'd live in a police state. n/t

[Lenomsky]

2. Awesomer ..

that the Department of Justice would allow Colorado and Washington to implement state laws that legalized recreational marijuana for adults.

Attorney General Eric Holder is a very wise man .. *bows and tips hat*

[msongs]

3. new policiy cuts into the LEO welfare pork scam. now they may have to find real criminals nt

[Poll_Blind]

5. I'll BET they don't want to give up the fight. How you gonna justify the APC's now?

Oh, I'm sure you will.



PB

[Lenomsky]

6. Indeed when ..

you earn 60-80k per annum driving around arresting kids for a gram of pot or 40 officers and SWAT to take down a grow shop .. that's a whole lot of overtime and a nice salary.

Jokers .. Cops have killed more (innocent) people than pot ever has and that's just in one town in one city in one state.

Nite

[truebluegreen]

33. Well said.

And welcome to DU.

[littlewolf]

36. just think no more kicking down the wrong door

and shooting grandma.
they will actually have to find really crooks

[LiberalFighter]

60. How many in law enforcement are able to do that.

Too many probably get high all buffed up and wearing their uniform when they do a bust.

[Locrian]

75. yep - piece of cake

Busting kids for pot etc with swat teams vs actually busting criminals.

[alittlelark]

7. Coulda been from 'The Onion'

.... seriously.

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. Tough, cops. Deal with it.

[jmowreader]

9. Holder just made their jobs a hell of a lot more dangerous

Marijuana users don't put arresting officers' lives in danger the way tequila, meth or heroin users do.

[AllyCat]

23. I was just thinking maybe they would have the time and resources to go after meth

labs, cocaine pushing, heroin dealers, and alcohol bootleggers. But I suppose they would rather not.

[jmowreader]

28. Resources, I think, are the biggest one

According to http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-meth-lab-cleanup-program-contains-costs-for-tennessee.html the national average cost for cleaning up a meth lab is $2500.

At that rate, a meth lab a month will run the county $30,000 per year. Most counties can afford that. Up that to four a month and...well, you get the idea: just cleaning up the labs would be expensive enough. That doesn't count the costs of busting the cooks, taking down their networks, putting them in jail, and so on, and so on, and so on. I know in my county, if the sheriff were to walk into the county commission and tell them he needs an extra million bucks because he's decided to forego busting potheads in favor of meth labs, they'd impeach the poor guy on the spot and he does a decent-enough job. Pot arrests are WAY cheaper.

But that's okay because in Idaho we have a law, one of the few that made it all the way to the governor's desk in the last session, that says pot will never be legal here for any reason. (Well, there were the five fuck-the-voters laws overturning the electorate's decision to get rid of Tom Luna's education deform plan, but most of our last session was spent arguing the need to increase truck weights. That didn't pass.)

[truebluegreen]

34. Used to live in Idaho. I feel for ya.

[Supersedeas]

73. yep, priorities

[iandhr]

10. I am SHOCKED SHOCKED to find that gambling is going on here.

[delrem]

11. Notice was given by the voters. It's been time enough for law enforcement to prepare.

[daschess1987]

13. Time to shrink the government a bit... :)

They should also bug all cop cars and strip all officers of union benefits and let them work for minimum wage if they badmouth their unions or force us falsely-accused folks to listen to crackling fucking right-wing radio.

[awoke_in_2003]

14. To quote NWA...

Fuck da police

[Taverner]

15. They want their WOD booty

The seizures, the federal funds - that's a lot of money

Bwahahahahaha!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. The gravy train of busting stoners for big bucks is OVER.

[AllyCat]

24. Big bucks at low risk!

[frylock]

17. fuck tha police

[nolabels]

67. Citizens 1, Cops 0

A person can only wonder the US will actually implement policies to rehabilitate prison inmates rather than warehouse them.

[Coyotl]

18. Are they worried their childrern won't have life-long jobs w/pensions for persecuting hippies?

Can't have Nixon's political enemies list go unused!

[avaistheone1]

29. Of course.

[SHRED]

19. Cops worried about their promotions...priceless

[RainDog]

21. What sort of society do we want?

from 2007 - and the amount of money and arrests have increased...

What would you buy if you had an extra $42 billion to spend every year? What might our government buy if it suddenly had that much money dropped onto its lap every year?

For one thing, it might pay for the entire $7 billion annual increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program that President Bush is threatening to veto because of its cost -- and there'd still be $35 billion left over.

Or perhaps you'd hire 880,000 schoolteachers at the average U.S. teacher salary of $47,602 per year.

Why $42 billion? Because that's what our current marijuana laws cost American taxpayers each year, according to a new study by researcher Jon Gettman, Ph.D. -- $10.7 billion in direct law enforcement costs, and $31.1 billion in lost tax revenues. And that may be an underestimate, at least on the law enforcement side, since Gettman made his calculations before the FBI released its latest arrest statistics in late September. The new FBI stats show an all-time record 829,627 marijuana arrests in 2006, 43,000 more than in 2005.

http://www.alternet.org/story/64465/the_war_on_pot%3A_america's_$42_billion_annual_boondoggle

[WCLinolVir]

79. Nice.

[RainDog]

81. swords into ploughshares n/t

[Dragonfli]

26. Why protest Holder? He's not in charge of their jurisdictions, as State, County, and local officers

Their responsibly is simply to enforce State, County, and Local laws within their jurisdictions, the laws they mourn against recreational cannabis are dead on a State, County, and local level and so no longer their concern. They need to get familiar with the regulatory laws as they come out in their states and worry about issues like ID check for minors and whatever else is codified, they need to move on, literally to doing their new jobs of enforcing cannabis regulatory rules put in place - the same way they do now with alcohol and tobacco, if they can manage that is.

I don't even understand why they are having this conversation.
If they want the old laws back so that they can enforce them, I'm afraid their only solution is to vote for politicians that will bring back their beloved cash cow prohibition laws. They don't make the laws in their States, their jobs are only to enforce them and their only valid opinion on dead laws is as voters.

Holders policy to not enforce Federal laws in conflict with State laws is quite frankly none of their business or concern (other than as citizens and voters just like the rest of us), the only officers entitled to that conversation are those responsible for enforcing Federal laws and even they have a chain of command like all other LE officers (I think I hear their boss talking now....)

[bemildred]

38. Because only the Feds have the power to keep forcing prohibition on us, that's why.

And once it is clear that Colorado and Washington's actions have no particular pernicious consequences, everybody else is going to want the revenue too, why give the money to criminals overseas?

[Tx4obama]

27. Bravo Mr. Holder :)

[99th_Monkey]

30. "If there had been doubt about how meaningful Holder's move was ... " <-- I like this part. eom

[Oldenuff]

31. I don't think there has been a article in recent months

That has given me more pleasure to read than this one.

These SOB'S think that they write the laws (or at the minimum have a great deal of input on them) and to have them left out of the loop..well... that just tickles me to no end.

These co** su***** and their Swat Teams think they rule the world,and to see them barking about not having input pleases me more than you can imagine.Whassa matter?Your days of shooting innocent dogs is coming to an end potentially?Wait a minute,let me get a hanky.

Now what?They have to look for real criminals?Maybe earn their pay for a change?

[tofuandbeer]

32. Why would the police be so dead-set against this?

The only thing I can think is that detecting pot use while driving is difficult.
I don't believe the gate-way drug thing.

I'm not a marijuana user (in fact, I'm annoyed by the people who smoke it on my street and leave junk food trash in the street—a well known /smelling hangout for pot), but I am all for legalizing it.

Or, is it that the police are against it because they are pressured/paid off by the private prison industry?

[Lasher]

35. I've seen these guys in action.

I've seen them dressed up like soldiers and formed up in a big herd, with a helicopter flying around overhead, in at least half a dozen squad cars with sirens wailing and everything, accompanied by special ninja warrior cops who rode up in matching camouflaged ATVs - to arrest one harmless old guy who had a pot plant in his garden right beside the road. They knew exactly where it was ahead of time because somebody had called to report it.

[bemildred]

37. For the man in the paddock, whose duty it is to sweep up manure, the supreme terror

is the possibility of a world without horses.

-- Henry Miller in Tropic of Cancer"

[AllyCat]

43. Didn't Gore say "It is difficult to get a man to understand something whose paycheck

depends on him not understanding it" or something like that?

[bemildred]

44. Same deal, yeah, but Miller was a better writer.

He didn't have a lot of range, but what he did, he did well.

[RainDog]

49. Upton Sinclair, not Gore, was the origin of that quote

fwiw.

Upton Sinclair was not only a muckraking writer (The Jungle). He also ran for Congress in California as a socialist in the 1920s. In the 1930s he ran for gov. of CA on the EPIC ticket (End Poverty in California.) Louis B. Mayer so opposed this idea he bought billboards to advertise opposition to Sinclair's candidacy.

And, of course, Sinclair wrote "Oil!" - which was the basis for the movie "There Will Be Blood."

[bemildred]

50. Yeah, I think you're right, but these things take on a life of their own.

Another example, the "Gaia Hypothesis":

“The globe is obviously an animated being. Is it alive? That is the question. Between animation and life there exists a subtle difference: the personality, the enormous I. Who would dare affirm it? Who would deny it?”

-- Victor Hugo, The Toilers of the Sea (in translation) B.3, Ch. III, “The Sea and the Wind”

[RainDog]

52. Oh. I'd never heard it attributed to Gore before

Toilers is a great book.

[bemildred]

55. No, not that one, I've never seen that one anywhere else.

I had to dig up a cheap translation. And yes, it's a great book.

[AllyCat]

68. This is really funny...I meant ALBERT Gore, the VP.

Thanks for all the talk of writers I clearly need to add to my reading list!

[bemildred]

70. Well, much as I like Al, I don't think he reads a lot of obscure Hugo in translation.

Upton Sinclair on the other hand is vintage american lit. that I would expect him to know about.

[Safetykitten]

39. Of course they do...less cool breaking down door equipment with fashion accessories.

[madrchsod]

40. it`s all about the money....

pot is a cash cow for the cops.

[Tom Ripley]

41. Fuck those roided up parasites! Bring on the pipers.

[fredamae]

42. We ought to Thank them

for this-They've helped Prove the façade behind cannabis prohibition.

All they have is antiquated, 1930's bs lies/rhetoric and the public is wised up.

Who's next for having a melt-down over AG Holders common sense approach?

There are many, many different orgs/corp interests behind maintaining "for profit" prohibition-so many I can't speculate who'll "freak out" next when they realize their loss of money...

[L0oniX]

45. Who the fuck do they think they are? No one needs to notify them of shit!

[Ohio Joe]

46. "doesn't want to give up the fight."... Ha! What bullshit...

It is the authority, power and money they don't want to give up.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

47. Fuck off and sit down, pig.

Useless motherfuckers.

[Shampoobra]

48. Sounds just like a scene from the Wizard of Oz...

"It is unacceptable that the Department of Justice did not consult our organizations!"

I can picture him defiantly waving a scroll over his head as he makes his objections heard.

[orpupilofnature57]

54. Without hassling smokers, all there is to do is catch criminals .

[notadmblnd]

56. Sounds like some LEOs are worried about losing their jobs

[RainDog]

57. FINALLY! Something liberals and conservatives can agree on - no prohibition

Here are other reactions to Holder's announcement from the pov of conservatives.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16433-feds-will-respect-state-sovereignty-on-marijuana-says-ag-holder

Not all Law Enforcement Officers, past and present, agree with those raising a ruckus with Holder.

"Today's announcement by Eric Holder and the Department of Justice should be hailed as a victory for the 10th Amendment, states’ rights, and small-government proponents,” retired police Lieutenant Commander Diane Goldstein, a board member with the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), told The New American. “Just as it was the states that finally ended the failed experiment with alcohol prohibition, it is the states that are propelling radical shifts in our national drug policy today. It is long past due for our politicians and all the branches of our government to support this change."

...and conservative's who hate the UN are having a "gotcha!" moment...

Despite decades-old United Nations agreements purporting to require global prohibition of the controversial plant and unconstitutional federal statutes claiming to outlaw it for virtually any purpose nationwide, state governments have increasingly turned to nullification by rejecting the war. Already, almost half of the states have adopted laws allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes. Last year, voters in Colorado and Washington decided to end the war on cannabis completely, making it available legally to adults while taxing and regulating the industry.

The UN, of course, has been complaining loudly about recent developments in the United States, absurdly claiming that sovereign state governments could not regulate the plant as they see fit. The global entity even demanded that Obama quash the will of voters, drawing fury from across the political spectrum. Meanwhile, despite its rhetoric, the Obama administration has been targeting the medical-marijuana industry in states where it is legal more ferociously than even former President George W. Bush. The new guidelines to federal prosecutors, however, while leaving some leeway for prosecutorial discretion, are expected to rein in many of the excesses, according to analysts.

And conservatives are hoping this issue signals a future for refusal of... health care? (way to take the wrong lesson from this one...)

Despite numerous controversies surrounding the safety and morality of consuming the plant, the move is also being seen as a positive development among constitutionalists — especially because, as The New American outlined in great detail in 2011, the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate or ban any substances. That is why alcohol prohibition, for example, required a constitutional amendment, which was ultimately repealed after the scheme led to soaring crime, lawlessness, an explosion of gang activity, and numerous other problems. Experts say even if it was not the administration’s intention, it appears as though the decision represents at least a partial victory in practice for the 10th Amendment granting all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

Since the AG's office is talking about a "wait and see" policy - I don't quite see how this issue aligns with conservative goals to deny equal protection. But I'm no constitutional scholar like, oh, Scalia and other conservatives using the interstate commerce clause to deny cancer patients the right to grow cannabis for their own health care in their own backyards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

[workinclasszero]

58. Of course...90% of their damn job is busting harmless pot smokers

I'm sure they will fight the legalization of marijuana 10000%!

Way easier to beat up potheads than real killers and thieves, don't you know?

[annabanana]

61. Sorry boys.. It's not your job to write or make enforcement decisions about the laws..

Suck it up and do your jobs.

[indepat]

62. The asset-seizure laws, as currently enforced, are criminally unconstitutional imo

and heinously and corruptly applied with unconscionable zeal.

[RainDog]

64. it's robbery

that Congress has put in place. disgusting. they should be ashamed and should get rid of this horrible law.

read this -

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman

[indepat]

65. Modern-day highwaymen, but with the seal of governmental approval. Unconstitutional

on its face, imo, a law which has probably led to rampant criminality among many of those who have been given big brother's license to steal.

[rickyhall]

66. Harry J. Anslinger

The whole thing started as a way for Anslinger to keep his job after alcohol prohibition ended. These clowns are no different. If they lose their jobs they may to actually have to WORK for a living like the rest of us. Same would happen to preachers if atheism became popular or to repugs if love replaced hate. And on and on...

[DeSwiss]

69. We need to DISMANTLE this police state......

...one cop at a time. But quickly.

- K&R



Police Can Bar High I.Q.s
Police Brutality Info
Police Misconduct Net

[RainDog]

72. things are waaaay out of balance

between the need of the state and the rights of individuals.

[burnsei sensei]

71. Tradition, where did it go?

The role of law enforcement is traditionally understood to be limited to enforcing laws, but police organizations have become increasingly powerful political actors, and lashed out at Holder for not consulting sufficiently before adopting the new policy.

Arm them more, militarize them almost, turn them into intelligence gatherers, and then reap what you sow.
The dogs are dragging the hunters. Damn them.

[wordpix]

74. they doth protest too much --- are they on the take? That's what happened in Prohibition

i.e. cops, police chiefs and mayors became corrupt. They were paid to look the other way or even actively help in liquor distribution network.

Same happening here with pot?

[randr]

76. There is a far broader coalition of law enforcement officers

and elected officials who are glad to see Holders move.

[d_r]

78. who doesnt like

sausage and Gravy?

[DiverDave]

80. The trough is running dry, or they THINK it will

Time to stand up to these bully's in blue, they need to remember they DO WORK FOR US!!
But the judges, elected officials and the police unions think they are untouchable.
Dangit, we need just 1 judge with the stones to slap them back into line.

I aint holding my breath, though

[adirondacker]

82. One of Kevin Smith's lines fits quite well in this matter...